Vtuber Ranks All 27 Amendments

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 16 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 44

  • @PolymurExcel
    @PolymurExcel Місяць тому +23

    The first five amendments were in direct response to British colonial rule. Especially the third amendment. I feel the 2nd is definitely important in concept because it's supposed keep the 1st in place. What good is the first amendment if you aren't able to protect it? The 1t and 2nd are basically two sides of a coin and can't exist without the other.

    • @Koldatt
      @Koldatt Місяць тому +6

      Well Said

    • @bevillian
      @bevillian  Місяць тому +2

      100%! my only qualm with the 2nd amendment is literally how healthcare needs to be better in order to take care of people that have trouble with suicidal tendencies and not give them guns (where they end up taking their own life :( ). i agree with the right to bear arms! i just hate how there's a lack of care in many different facets

    • @PolymurExcel
      @PolymurExcel Місяць тому +5

      @@bevillian it’s not even on the doctors either, nor necessarily the hospitals, as the U.S. has some of the best medicine around. Medical costs are astronomically high even with people who have good insurance. Then the insurance companies do everything they can to not provide the only service that allows them to even exist. It’s insane and just plain greedy. This is coming from a guy that loves capitalism, but this system has quite a few short comings and US healthcare is the shining pillar of it.

  • @deathby1808
    @deathby1808 Місяць тому +17

    In my opinion the second amendment is the most important one. It’s not necessarily meant to protect ourselves from other invaders, but to protect us from our own government. If the government went full dictatorship and we didn’t have guns or weapons to fight them, it would make it too easy for them to take power.

    • @bevillian
      @bevillian  Місяць тому +2

      @@deathby1808 i totally get what you mean! my only issue is that our government (strongest military in the world) could win so easily against us if they wanted to. sure, not everyone in the military will side with them, but we are so knee deep in propaganda, being dogs for the military, and so on. the established some that have undying loyalty to the government could just air strike us or whatever to win :(

    • @flyboy6392
      @flyboy6392 Місяць тому +16

      @@bevillian Not as easily as you'd probably believe. The military is predominantly made of people who understand their oath to the constitution first, in fact, 12 years ago or so, the NSA did a study if I remember right that said 80% of the military would defect if they were ordered to turn their guns on US civilians. Also, US troops are legally obligated to ignore unlawful orders such as opening fire on civilians. Not to mention a large portion of gun owners are military veterans that just want to be left alone. Lord knows I just wanna be left alone IRL for the most part, but if push comes to shove, more than a few wouldn't mind a chance to use what they learned after 20+ years in the desert fighting an asymmetrical war with no ROEs or protections by Law of Armed Conflict or the Geneva Convention.

    • @shadowmandeathstroke8232
      @shadowmandeathstroke8232 Місяць тому +4

      @@bevillian That didn't work in Afghanistan

    • @enoughrope1638
      @enoughrope1638 Місяць тому

      @@bevillian So this is a bad argument for numerous reasons. For example the US only has about one armored vehicle per ten thousand people. They have about one fighter jet per one hundred thousand people. Looking at modern examples of how dictatorships work they aren't going to send fighter jets to bomb a thousand people protesting. What they will do is cut off the internet, play swan lake on the television, and send out loyalist riot police. Another reason would be the supply chain of that high tech equipment which would gradually reduce their numbers. If you get bored look up how massive the supply chain for the F35 is.

    • @bjornthorgudmundsson2781
      @bjornthorgudmundsson2781 Місяць тому +1

      ​@@bevillian the war on terror, the troubles in ireland and the vietnam and korean wars would like to have a word with you lol

  • @Heracullum
    @Heracullum Місяць тому +7

    Id argue that the first ten are all S tier

    • @slydoorkeeper4783
      @slydoorkeeper4783 6 днів тому

      I mean, bill of rights for a reason. They weren't just amendments of a constitution, but something more and the founders knew that.

  • @CaliburnVT
    @CaliburnVT Місяць тому +10

    kinda crazy that this rolled into my recommended

  • @Mobius_md
    @Mobius_md Місяць тому +2

    With regards to income tax, most of the US budget is not being used towards defense, 13% of the budget is allocated for defense which is tied for 3rd for most spending per category. There are two categories ahead of defense being Medicare at 14% and social security at 21%

  • @xeriphlux1921
    @xeriphlux1921 Місяць тому +5

    2nd is S tier tbh.
    Short of registering your face, finger prints, DNA, and sold to you by an actual cop after 3 background checks, it's as regulated as it needs to be.
    "Well regulated" means training and experience, not controlling the sale. If more Americans were armed, properly trained, and educated in firearms usage the rate of violent gun crime would decrease exponentially. Just like it does in communities were ordinary citizens are properly armed.
    If you would be interested in proper firearms education and statistics, I recommend the UA-cam channels of Colion Noir and the USCCA.

  • @XM8A1
    @XM8A1 Місяць тому +6

    Regulated back then meant proficient eith them and in well working order.
    2nd gave us the tools to be free from the British, and gives us the means to reinforce the 3rd amendment, along with others. I'd argue S or A tier for the 2nd.

    • @bevillian
      @bevillian  Місяць тому

      @@XM8A1 my only problem with it is the lack of regulation that causes gun issues in the US. i love guns! don't get me wrong, they're super cool. but, i hate seeing the constant violence with them whether it be gang related, school shooting, whatever. guns are objects made to kill, there should be some strict regulation on them because of that.
      otherwise, the history is cool as fuck and valid for sure

    • @XM8A1
      @XM8A1 Місяць тому

      @@bevillian
      Considering the 250k gun laws in place, more regulation isn't going to do anything. We should enforce existing laws instead of introducing more. 60-70% of gun deaths is suicides, most of the rest is gang violence. Most "mass shootings" is also gang violence, and most "school shootings" are random street shootings near a school after school hours, or simply someone shooting into a ceiling and no one getting hurt.
      Statistically, more people are saved than killed by guns. Most of those saves don't even involve shots being fired. Limiting the law abiding and scaring/disinforming people about weapons is pure stupid. Criminals are the ones committing crimes, but the law abiding are getting punished. I don't watch the news cuz all news channels are biased.

    • @randomexeter3627
      @randomexeter3627 Місяць тому +1

      @@bevillian The problem is that people often times zero in on the wrong things. For instance, about 60% of all gun deaths are suicides. It's debatable as to whether those people would still be alive if the gun wasn't available to them, but at the same time suicide is usually a mental health issue more than anything else and so who knows what would actually have happened. More than half of the remaining gun deaths are gang-related -- which is a law enforcement issue. We currently have prosecutors, mayors, and governors doing their best to ensure that gang members get back out on the streets as fast as they can -- I can see no problems there if you want a higher body count. And finally, a really low number of gun deaths involve long guns (rifles, shotguns, etc). Do we want those deaths? Obviously not, but if you consider the misuse of these firearms compared to responsible ownership, you're basically penalizing something like 99,999 people for the actions of a single individual. Compared to the number of incidents involving automobiles, gun owners are more responsible than car owners. And this is for a device which, as you've noted, is made to kill.

    • @PolymurExcel
      @PolymurExcel Місяць тому

      @@randomexeter3627 It doesn't need more regulations, as someone who is at least somewhat familiar with a gun buying process, it really needs more clearly defined regulations as well as better healthcare because people who've never been in the system are going to get their hands on guns even if they're people who've never should have gotten them to begin with. Which is where I hear a lot of talking points.

    • @XM8A1
      @XM8A1 Місяць тому

      @@bevillian
      Idk if u saw it or not, but my reply got fuchin deleted. Ider what I said.

  • @JRock3091
    @JRock3091 Місяць тому +3

    The 19th is automatically F teir

  • @thecobaltblade9-oq2yt
    @thecobaltblade9-oq2yt Місяць тому +2

    Bevillain for President!

  • @jsalsman
    @jsalsman Місяць тому

    The 14th is hard because it's four different subjects.

  • @yumri4
    @yumri4 Місяць тому

    Her issues with the 2nd amendment are addressed in the text of the 2nd amendment. The part of private citizens being allowed to have guns is a relatively new reading of the amendment. Before 2008 it was just not disallowed but also not explicitly allowed either. Now it just hangs on how does the national supreme court read it. How it has been read is it is the USA national Army, each state's national guard and the police are allowed to have guns. The way private citizens were allowed or disallowed to have guns is an array of state laws and for the most part still is. Just not instead of a whitelist you have a blacklist of people who are not allowed to have guns.
    Her issues with the 13th amendment are addressed in the 13th amendment. Yes we have prisoners working but they are paid a wage. Reduced from what they would have been paid if not in prison but they are paid as it did come up in court that prisoners were using prisoners as slaves. It made it to the supreme court and it got ruled as yes they can use prisoner labor but they do have to be paid. The part of unpaid labor is when you are sentenced to X amount of hours of community service for whatever you are found guilty of by the court of law.
    Her issues with the 17th amendment was why the senate was the people sent by the state and the house was the people voted on by the citizens. The 17th amendment was made due to what was seen as corruption in how who decides who the states were sending was done. So now the citizens vote on both.
    Her take on the 20th amendment I agree with but is why the majority of congress has been in it for 30+ years. There is also no term limits for state governors in the national constitution but it is set out in each state's state constitution. So if the state wanted it to be they can extend how long the term is without effecting any other by amending their own state's constitution.
    The 25th amendment has been used to shift the power of the president to the vice president in times of when the president is unable to do the jobs required of the office. The only 2 times i can think of was when the president was having surgery and like all surgery there is a risk of death so the power was shifted to the vice president then after he got back from surgery and able to do the job again he took the power back. The can be made a case for Trump when president and Biden as president having issues with mental acuity but it wasn't used and most likely will not be used for Biden.

  • @stallionduckchaser
    @stallionduckchaser Місяць тому

    Out of curiosity what do you consider a murder machine? I only ask because hunting rifles are much more powerful than most any semi it full automatic weapon, a deer will eat a smaller round and maybe bleed to death and those rounds are generally used in legal semi autos. Although i come from NY where regulations are to strong imo so i am biased

    • @bevillian
      @bevillian  Місяць тому

      i think just guns in general can be considered a murder machine in the sense that their only purpose is to kill, yknow? yeah they're used to protect, hunt, whatever, but they do so in the way of killing

    • @stallionduckchaser
      @stallionduckchaser Місяць тому

      @@bevillian yea that's true, I believe weapons are a necessary evil though since the evil people will always have weapons and will obtain them illegally. So it's sadly required for the rest of us to have them.

  • @Koldatt
    @Koldatt Місяць тому +1

    Im here for the inevitable comments raging about the 2A
    Im not gonna rage lol but the 1st amendment protects the westboro babtist church.
    This is all healthy discourse anyhow but

    • @shemyaza8934
      @shemyaza8934 Місяць тому +1

      It also protects all the ridiculous trans nonsense they are currently teaching in schools. If one goes, so does the other.

  • @JanitorScruffy
    @JanitorScruffy Місяць тому

    Some of these ammendments? Kind of mid. Could do without.
    Let's see if this vtuber who popped up in my recommends is wrong!

  • @Nes_Cartridge
    @Nes_Cartridge Місяць тому

    Hella Nescore

  • @oneoftheclones
    @oneoftheclones Місяць тому

    Interesting